DOCSLIB.ORG

The Comparative Stratigraphy of Palaeolithic Palestine with Special Emphasis on the Flint Implements

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Comparative Stratigraphy of Palaeolithic Palestine with Special Emphasis on the Flint Implements Wilfrid Laurier University Scholars Commons @ Laurier Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) 1979 The Comparative Stratigraphy of Palaeolithic Palestine with Special Emphasis on the Flint Implements Kenneth Edwin Guenter Wilfrid Laurier University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd Part of the Classical Archaeology and Art History Commons Recommended Citation Guenter, Kenneth Edwin, "The Comparative Stratigraphy of Palaeolithic Palestine with Special Emphasis on the Flint Implements" (1979). Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive). 1411. https://scholars.wlu.ca/etd/1411 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations (Comprehensive) by an authorized administrator of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE COMPARATIVE STRATIGRAPHY OF PALAEOLITHIC PALESTINE WITH SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON THE FLINT IMPLEMENTS By KENNETH EDWIN GUENTER B.A. University of Saskatchewan, 1971 THESIS Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the plaster of Arts degree Wilfrid Laurier University 1979 Property of trTe Library Wilfrid Laurier University •i *>• 7 0 43 UMI Number: EC56334 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent on the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI EC56334 Copyright 2012 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 THE COMPARATIVE STRATIGRAPHY OF PALAEOLITHIC PALESTINE Kenneth Edwin Guenter ABSTRACT Since World War I the Palaeolthic industries of Palestine have been the subject of a considerable amount of investigation and discussion. The results of this work have been made available to scholars of the Ancient Near East primarily in isolated journal articles or publications of single sites. The present writer intends, therefore, to present an account of those Palaeolithic industries in which this data is collected, systematized and interpreted in such a way that scholars working in this area of Near Eastern studies may have at their disposal a foundation which is readily meaningful and broadly factual. This foundation is divided into four major sections. In chapter I the history of studies in this field is re­ viewed so that our intentions may be set within this per­ spective. Chapter II introduces us to the information which is crucial to the development of a chronology and typology for this period. The typology is set forth s- :stically and then it is explained much more fully ir. , hapter III. With the construction of the chart in chapter II outlining the Palaeolithic typology, and with its detailed explanation in chapter III we concentrate most ii keenly on the synthesis of this data which has not been widely available to scholars. Finally, in chapter IV we go beyond the tools to look at the men who made them. Our emphasis is on the implications of these tools in under­ standing the tool-makers. Inasmuch as there are many terms and related concepts which are not used widely outside of the study of prehistory, we have included in the text many figures, and we have at­ tached a glossary of terms at the end of this work. The final chapter is intended to point the way to further research arising out of the work which we have pre­ sented. iii CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 1 History of Studies 1 Current Problems 6 Author ' s intent 8 II. TYPOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY 9 The Problem of Chronology 9 The Typology Chart 17 The Development of Technioue 20 III. THE PALAEOLITHIC INDUSTRIES 28 The Lower Palaeolithic Open Sites 28 The Lower Palaeolithic Cave Deposits 45 The Middle Palaeolithic 63 The Upper Palaeolithic 76 IV. PALAEOLITHIC LIFE IN PALESTINE 100 V. AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH 117 MAP OF MAJOR PALAEOLITHIC SITES IN PALESTINE 119 GLOSSARY 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY 123 V LIST OF CHARTS 1. The Typology Chart 19 2. The Lithic Data from Ubeidiya 35 3. Stratigraphy of Jisr Banat Yaqub 38 4. Lower Palaeolithic Open Sites 41 5. Lower Palaeolithic Cave Deposits 46 6. Typology for Qatafa Within the Acheulian .... 31 7. Hand-axes of Tabun, Layer E- 55 8. Percentage of Racloirs at et-Tabun 59 9. Jabrud I, Levels 10-2 69 10. Occupation Chart from Mount Carmel 105 11. Occupation Chart from the Judaean Desert .... 105 vi LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. Pebble Chopper 20 2. Flake Characteristics 20 3. The production of broad and triangular Levallois flakes 23 4. Punch technique and pressure technique 24 5. Blade and Core 25 6. Production of a hand-axe using a "soft hammer" . 26 7. Pressure flaking 30 8. Core Choppers 30 9. A Spheroid 30 10. Proto-Trihedral, trihedral and quadrihedral picks 31 11. Pointed Hand-axe and Proto-cleaver 33 12. Common outlines for hand-axes 36 13. Lava Hand-axes from Jisr Banat Yaqub 39 14. Tabunian flake tools 50 15. Hand-axes from Layer F of et-Tabun 50 16. Hand-axes from et-Tabun, layer Ea 53 17. Hand-axes from Various Horizons of layei E of et-Tabun 53 18. Resolved or Step-flaking 56 19. End-bulb Type and Oblique-bulb Type Racloirs . 56 20. End-bulb, one-sided Racloirs from Tabun, layer E 57 21. Racloirs 58 22. Racloirs 59 23. Pre-Aurignacian tools from Jabrud 64 24. Chatelperron Knives and Blades with nibbled edges from Tabun, layers Ec and Eb 64 25. Levallois Points from et-Tabun, layer D .... 67 26. Racloirs from et-Tabun, layers D and C 68 27. Elongated Mousterian tools from Abou-Sif .... 71 28. Emireh Points 78 29. Tools from the Upper Palaeolithic, Stage I . 80 30. Worked blades from Stage II 81 31. Scrapers from Stage II 81 32. Burins from el-Wad, layer E 84 33. El-Wad Points 86 34. Scrapers from Stage III 86 35. Polyhedric Burins from el-Wad and Kebara .... 89 36. Ordinary or Bec-de-flute Burins from Kebara and el-Wad 89 37. Ordinary Burins on thicker flakes from el-Wad. 90 38. Angle Burins from Kebara and el-Wad 90 vii Single Blow Burins from el-Wad, Erq el-Ahmar and Kebara 91 Flat Burins from el-Wad and Europe 91 Beaked Burins from el-Wad 92 Steep or Semi-steep Scrapers from el-Wad, layer D 93 End-scrapers, fromKebara and Erq el-Ahmar ... 93 Flake Scrapers ' . 94 Nose Scrapers 95 Tools from Stage VI 96 A Chatelperron Knife with a Groove for the Second Finger Ill Skulls of Individuals V of Skhul and I of Tabun 114 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTIOil The History of Studies in Palaeolithic Palestine The systematic study of Palaeolithic Palestine began with the excavation of three large caves in the Wadi el Mughara of Mount Carmel by D. Garrod in 1923. The results published in 1937 and 1939 revealed not only a continuous occupation stretching from the Lower Palaeolithic through the Upper Palaeolithic, but also a rich store of fossil human remains from the Middle Palaeolithic. The magni­ tude of this find still commands serious attention due to the quantity of material from many of the layers. In the Tabun cave alone over fifty-five feet of occupational de­ bris contained well over 55,000 tools. Garrod's division of layer E has been criticized as subjective and her tech- nique as primitive.' This coupled with the Tayacian prob­ lem and the Pre-aurignacian problem have prompted new D.A.E. Barrod and D.N.A. Bate, The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol. 1. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937) and McGowen and-Keith, The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, vol 2 (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1939). 2 David Gilead, "Early Palaeolithic Cultures in Israel and the Near East" (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University, 1970), pp. 329-330. 1 2 excavations which are still in progress. While the work on Mount Carmel was in progress, R. Neuville began excavation in the Judean desert south of Bethlehem at the Lower Palaeolithic cave of Oumm Qatafa. Within the surrounding wadis more caves were excavated and as at Mount Carmel a continuous sequence of occupational levels was established, stretching from the Lower Palaeo­ lithic through the Upper Palaeolithic. Here at least seven caves are involved and occupation, therefore, moved from cave to cave with fewer remains than at Mount Carmel. The discoveries led to a further development of the typology for Palestine by correlations with the finds at Mount Carmel. R. Neuville's work Le Prehistorique de Palestine (Rev. Bib., 1934, pp. 237-259) was followed by the work of R.P. de Vaux, La prehistoire de la Syrie et de la Palestine d'apres les recherches recentes (Rev. Bib., 1946, pp. 99-124). Finally Neuville completed his publica­ tion of material from the seven caves in 1951, "Le Paleo- lithique et le Mesolithique du desert de Judee." This work has had a considerable influence in establishing the sequence of the Upper Palaeolithic in more detail. Meanwhile in Syria two Palaeolithic rock shelters at Jebrud near Damascus contained a third Palaeolithic se­ quence which paralleled those of Mount Carmel and the 1Ibid., pp. 330-339. 3 Judean desert. This was published in 1950 by A. Rust (De Hohlenjunde von Jabrud (Syrien)). Although the quantity of tools catalogued was much smaller than that of Carmel the attention shown by Rust to stratigraphy has made his work somewhat of a standard in this aspect of Palaeolithic research in Syria Palestine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa
    Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Introduction 20 The African archeological record of 43-28 ka as a comparison 21 A - The Aurignacian has no direct equivalent in Africa 21 B - Archaic hominins persist in Africa through much of the Late Pleistocene 24 C - High modification symbolic artifacts in Africa and Eurasia 24 Conclusions 26 Acknowledgements 26 References cited 27 To cite this article Tryon C. A. , 2015 - The Aurignacian Viewed from Africa, in White R., Bourrillon R. (eds.) with the collaboration of Bon F., Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe, Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University, P@lethnology, 7, 19-33. http://www.palethnologie.org 19 P@lethnology | 2015 | 19-33 Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe Proceedings of the International Symposium, April 08-10 2013, New York University THE AURIGNACIAN VIEWED FROM AFRICA Christian A. TRYON Abstract The Aurignacian technocomplex in Eurasia, dated to ~43-28 ka, has no direct archeological taxonomic equivalent in Africa during the same time interval, which may reflect differences in inter-group communication or differences in archeological definitions currently in use. Extinct hominin taxa are present in both Eurasia and Africa during this interval, but the African archeological record has played little role in discussions of the demographic expansion of Homo sapiens, unlike the Aurignacian. Sites in Eurasia and Africa by 42 ka show the earliest examples of personal ornaments that result from extensive modification of raw materials, a greater investment of time that may reflect increased their use in increasingly diverse and complex social networks.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution
    On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer. 1998. “On the Nature of Transitions: The Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution.” Cam. Arch. Jnl 8 (02) (October): 141. Published Version doi:10.1017/S0959774300000986 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211496 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Cambridge Archaeological Journal 8:2 (1998), 141-63 On the Nature of Transitions: the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic and the Neolithic Revolution Ofer Bar-Yosef This article discusses two major revolutions in the history of humankind, namely, the Neolithic and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic revolutions. The course of the first one is used as a general analogy to study the second, and the older one. This approach puts aside the issue of biological differences among the human fossils, and concentrates solely on the cultural and technological innovations. It also demonstrates that issues that are common- place to the study of the trajisition from foraging to cultivation and animal husbandry can be employed as an overarching model for the study of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Palaeolithic. The advantage of this approach is that it focuses on the core areas where each of these revolutions began, the ensuing dispersals and their geographic contexts.
    [Show full text]
  • Early and Middle Pleistocene Faunal and Hominins Dispersals Through Southwestern Asia
    Early and Middle Pleistocene Faunal and Hominins Dispersals through Southwestern Asia The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bar-Yosef, Ofer and Miriam Belmaker. Forthcoming. Early and Middle Pleistocene faunal and hominins dispersals through Southwestern Asia. Quaternary Science Reviews 29. Published Version doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2010.02.016 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4270472 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Open Access Policy Articles, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#OAP 1 Early and Middle Pleistocene Faunal and Hominins Dispersals through 2 Southwestern Asia 3 4 5 Ofer Bar-Yosef and Miriam Belmaker 6 Department of Anthropology 7 Harvard University 8 11 Divinity Avenue 9 Cambridge MA 02138 10 Phone ++ 1 617 495 1279 11 Fax ++ 1 617 496 8041 12 1 12 Abstract 13 This review summarizes the paleoecology of the Early and Middle Pleistocene of 14 southwestern Asia, based on both flora and fauna, retrieved from a series of ‘windows’ 15 provided by the excavated sites. The incomplete chrono-stratigraphy of this vast region 16 does not allow to accept the direct chronological correlation between the available sites 17 and events of faunal and hominin dispersals from Africa. It also demonstrates that 18 hominins survived in a mixed landscape of open parkland with forested surrounding hills. 19 In addition, the prevailing environmental conditions are not sufficient to explain the 20 differences between ‘core and flake’ and the Acheulian industries that probably reflect 21 the learned traditions of different groups of hominins successful adaptations to new 22 ecological niches away from the African savanna.
    [Show full text]
  • The Paleo-Anthropocene and the Genesis of the Current Landscape of Israel
    aaaJournal of Landscape Ecology (2017), Vol: 10 / No. 3 THE PALEO-ANTHROPOCENE AND THE GENESIS OF THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF ISRAEL OREN ACKERMANN1*, AREN M. MAEIR2, SUEMBIKYA (SUE) FRUMIN2, TAL SVORAY3, EHUD WEISS2, HELENA M. ZHEVELEV4, LIORA KOLSKA HORWITZ5 1Israel Heritage Department and the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Ariel University, Israel, P.O.B. 3, Ariel 4070000 2The Martin (Szusz) Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Bar-Ilan University, Israel 3Department of Geography and Environmental Development, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, P.O.B. 653, Beer-Sheva, 84105 Israel 4The Laboratory of Geomorphology and Soil, The Department of Geography and Environment, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, 52900 Israel. [email protected] 5National Natural History Collections, Faculty of Life Sciences, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel *The first draft of this paper was written when O.A. was a staff member at Ashkelon Academic College and at Bar-Ilan University, corresponding author: [email protected] Received: 12th August 2017, Accepted: 30th November 2017 ABSTRACT Worldwide, human impact on natural landscapes has intensified since prehistoric times, and this is well documented in the global archaeological record. The period between the earliest hominids and the Industrial Revolution of the late 18-19th centuries is known as the Paleo-Anthropocene. The current study reviews key geoarchaeological, floral and faunal factors of the Paleo-Anthropocene in Israel, an area that has undergone human activities in various intensities since prehistoric times. It discusses significant human imprints on these three features in the Israeli landscape, demonstrating that its current form is almost entirely anthropogenic.
    [Show full text]
  • Biface Distributions and the Movius Line: a Southeast Asian Perspective
    University of Wollongong Research Online Faculty of Science - Papers (Archive) Faculty of Science, Medicine and Health 2012 Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Adam Brumm University of Wollongong, [email protected] Mark W. Moore University of New England Follow this and additional works at: https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers Part of the Life Sciences Commons, Physical Sciences and Mathematics Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Brumm, Adam and Moore, Mark W.: Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective 2012, 32-46. https://ro.uow.edu.au/scipapers/4441 Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library: [email protected] Biface distributions and the Movius Line: A Southeast Asian perspective Abstract The ‘Movius Line’ is the putative technological demarcation line mapping the easternmost geographical distribution of Acheulean bifacial tools. It is traditionally argued by proponents of the Movius Line that ‘true’ Acheulean bifaces, especially handaxes, are only found in abundance in Africa and western Eurasia, whereas in eastern Asia, in front of the ‘line’, these implements are rare or absent altogether. Here we argue, however, that the Movius Line relies on classifying undated surface bifaces as Acheulean on typological grounds alone, a long-standing and widely accepted practice in Africa and western Eurasia, but one that is not seen as legitimate in eastern Asian contexts. A review of the literature shows that bifaces are relatively common as surface finds in Southeast Asia and on this basis we argue that the Movius Line is in need of reassessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Upper Paleolithic Bladelet Production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician Produkce Čepelek V Iniciálním Mladém Paleolitu: Čepelky V Moravském Bohunicienu
    Přehled výzkumů 61/1, 2020 X 21–29 Initial Upper Paleolithic bladelet production: Bladelets in Moravian Bohunician Produkce čepelek v iniciálním mladém paleolitu: čepelky v moravském bohunicienu – Yuri E. Demidenko*, Petr Škrdla, Tereza Rychtaříková – “What about the bladelets?” J. Tixier, 1987 (Williams, Bergman 2010, 117) Introduction KEYWORDS: The “bladelet issue” continues to be central to continuing discussions on the recognition of various Early Upper Palaeo- Initial Upper Palaeolithic – Bohunician – bladelets – Boker Tachtit – lithic (UP) techno-complexes and industry types in the Levant, Kara-Bom – Ořechov especially concerning the identifi cation of the so-called true Au- rignacian in the region (for the latest discussions, see Williams, Bergman 2010; Demidenko, Hauck 2017; Goring-Morris, ABSTRACT Belfer-Cohen 2018). The present paper touches on the bladelet issue for the chronologically earlier Initial UP techno-complexes Bladelets are a common Upper Palaeolithic technological category, often in Eurasia (Fig. 1) and particularly its Central European Bohu- described as a proxy for the Early Upper Palaeolithic. However, bladelet pro- nician “representative”. duction has already been documented within preceding Initial Upper Palae- Nowadays it can be surely said that the bladelet issue is in- olithic techno-complexes, e.g. at Boker Tachtit (Negev Desert, Israel) and deed one of the most discussed subjects in Eurasian Palaeolithic Kara-Bom (Altai Republic, Russian Federation). Only isolated bladelets have Archaeology (e.g. Le Brun-Ricalens et al. eds. 2005). From our been reported from the Central European Bohunician. However, a recently point of view, this is mostly due to the recognition of the impor- discovered and excavated site, Ořechov IV – Kabáty has yielded a large series tant role of bladelets in the hunting projectile weaponry of UP (over 1,000 items) of micro-blades and bladelets, documenting a higher de- humans.
    [Show full text]
  • Complex Projectile Technology and Homo Sapiens Dispersal Into Western Eurasia
    Complex Projectile Technology and Homo sapiens Dispersal into Western Eurasia JOHN J. SHEA Department of Anthropology and Turkana Basin Institute, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA; [email protected] MATTHEW L. SISK Interdepartmental Doctoral Program in Anthropological Science, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4364, USA; [email protected] ABSTRACT This paper proposes that complex projectile weaponry was a key strategic innovation driving Late Pleistocene human dispersal into western Eurasia after 50 Ka. It argues that complex projectile weapons of the kind used by ethnographic hunter-gatherers, such as the bow and arrow, and spearthrower and dart, enabled Homo sapiens to overcome obstacles that constrained previous human dispersal from Africa to temperate western Eurasia. In the East Mediterranean Levant, the only permanent land bridge between Africa and Eurasia, stone and bone projectile armatures like those used in the complex weapon systems of recent humans appear abruptly ca 45–35 Ka in early Upper Paleolithic contexts associated with Homo sapiens fossils. Such artifacts are absent from Middle Paleolithic contexts associated with Homo sapiens and Neandertals. Hypotheses concerning the indigenous vs. exogenous origins of complex projectile weaponry in the Levant are reviewed. Current evidence favors the hypothesis that complex projectile technology developed as an aid to ecological niche broadening strategies among African popu- lations between 50–100 Ka. It most likely spread to western Eurasia along with dispersing Homo sapiens popula- tions. Neandertals did not routinely deploy projectile weapons as subsistence aids. This puzzling gap in their otherwise impressive record for survival in some of the harshest environments ever occupied by primates may reflect energetic constraints and time-budgeting factors associated with complex technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Stone Age Technology
    World’s Early People DIGGING UP DNA STONE AGE TECHNOLOGY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH Worlds_Early_People_FC.indd 1 2/7/17 11:22 AM 2 Who Lived in the Stone Age? When you think of “old,” what comes to But they helped hominins to thrive. mind? Last year’s shoes? Life before the The first species to make tools is from the Internet? Try a little earlier – 2.5 million genus (category) we call Homo (human). It years earlier! is known as Homo habilis, or “handy That’s about the time some of the first person.” It most likely lived in Africa 1.5 hominins, or humanlike species that walk to 2.4 million years ago. Homo habilis upright, started making tools from rocks. represented a big change. How big? Big Their tools were simple – mainly stones enough that we call its time the Paleolithic split to form a point or a sharp edge. era, or the Old Stone Age. l THE BRAINS ability to make of Homo habilis and use tools. were about Homo habilis’s half the size of tools and brain- present-day human power helped it brains. However, spread. Over the brains of Homo millennia, it habilis were larger adapted, or made than the brains changes that of the hominins helped it survive, to that came before live in regions that it. This may have earlier species had contributed to its found too harsh. d HOMO ERECTUS, or early as 2.5 million communities, hunt “upright person,” years ago, Homo for food, create art, was probably a lot erectus was at its and control fire like Homo habilis, peak about 1.9 for warmth and but taller and thin- million years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Variability in Early Ahmarian Lithic Technology and Its Implications for the Model of a Levantine Origin of the Protoaurignacian
    Journal of Human Evolution 82 (2015) 67e87 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Human Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhevol Variability in Early Ahmarian lithic technology and its implications for the model of a Levantine origin of the Protoaurignacian * Seiji Kadowaki a, , Takayuki Omori b, Yoshihiro Nishiaki b a Nagoya University Museum, Nagoya University, Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, 464-8601, Japan b The University Museum, The University of Tokyo, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan article info abstract Article history: This paper re-examines lithic technological variability of the Early Ahmarian, one of the early Upper Received 18 March 2014 Palaeolithic cultural entities in the Levant, which has often been regarded as a precursor of the Proto- Accepted 24 February 2015 aurignacian (the early Upper Palaeolithic in Europe) in arguments for the occurrence of a cultural spread Available online 25 April 2015 in association with the dispersal of Homo sapiens from the Levant to Europe. Using quantitative data on several lithic techno-typological attributes, we demonstrate that there is a significant degree of vari- Keywords: ability in the Early Ahmarian between the northern and southern Levant, as previously pointed out by Upper Palaeolithic several researchers. In addition, we suggest that the technology similar to the southern Early Ahmarian Levant Lithic technology also existed in the northern Levant, i.e., the Ksar Akil Phase 4 group (the KA 4 group), by introducing new Ahmarian Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from Wadi Kharar 16R, inland Syria. We then review currently available Protoaurignacian stratigraphic records and radiocarbon dates (including a new date from Wadi Kharar 16R), with special Homo sapiens attention to their methodological background.
    [Show full text]
  • The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia Robin Dennell New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 548 Pp
    The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia Robin Dennell New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009, 548 pp. (paperback), $50.00; (hardback), $95.00. ISBN-13: 9780521613101 (paperback). ISBN-13: 9780521848664 (hardback). Reviewed by AUGUST G. COSTA Human Origins and Primate Evolution (HOPE) Lab, Department of Anthropology, Indiana University, Student Building 130, 701 E. Kirkwood Ave., Bloomington, IN 47405, USA; [email protected] ThinkinG outside The Cradle origins of the Indian and East Asian monsoon systems udyard Kipling once wrote that “there is too much Asia that constitute the “heartbeat” of Asian prehistory (p. 473). Rand she is too old” (1899: 167). Indeed the continent of Chapters 4 and 5 highlight the fossil and archaeological Asia represents the largest and most diverse stage upon evidence for the earliest Asians, and are structured some- which human evolution occurred. Shockingly however, what irregularly. Chapter 4 reviews the best-known Early no one has ever published an integrated account of early Pleistocene sites from Southwest Asia according to geomor- Asian prehistory. Robin Dennell’s new book is an excellent phic setting (lakes and streams) and focuses on the main attempt at filling this void.The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia data points of Dmanisi and Ubeidiya. In contrast, Chapter 5 is a monumental contribution towards a continent-wide combines the evidence from a very large geographic spread understanding of early Asian prehistory. This work com- (South and Southeast Asia and China). bines an authoritative review of Asian Plio-Pleistocene pa- The South Asian portion of Chapter 5 describes the fos- leoenvironments with an up-to-date summary of the main siliferous Upper Siwalik deposits and Dennell’s controver- fossil and archaeological evidence prior to the last intergla- sial discoveries from Riwat and the Pabbi Hills in Northern cial (i.e., ca.
    [Show full text]
  • April, 28Th 2020 Dear Colleagues, Our 4Th Newsletter Comes in a Slightly Reduced Form with Most of This Year's Conferences
    April, 28th 2020 Dear Colleagues, Our 4th newsletter comes in a slightly reduced form with most of this year’s conferences cancelled or postponed due to the ongoing global pandemic, including our own UISPP congress (page 2). The XIX UISPP congress, including our two pyroarchaeology sessions, has been postponed to September 2021, but will still take place in Meknes. However, there still have been plenty of new pyroarchaeology papers published in the recent months (pages 2 to 5). We conclude our newsletter with an obituary for Ofer Bar-Yosef, written by one his former PhD students, Carolina Mallol (pages 6-7), and hope to bring you better tidings with our next newsletter. With our best wishes Carolina, Chris and Mareike* Contact us via Email [email protected] Follow us on Twitter @pyroarchaeology Visit us on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Pyroarchaeology-2265235893709367/ or on our UISPP commission website http://www.uispp.org/pyroarchaeology-0 * responsible for this newsletter Page 1 | 7 4th Newsletter UISPP Pyroarchaeology Commission Conference News Due to the global pandemic most of this year’s conferences have been cancelled, including the Trial by Fire Conference at Liverpool University, and some have plans of going virtual instead (e.g. EAA and ESHE). The XIX UISPP congress in Meknes has been postponed to 2nd to 7th September, 2021, and the abstract submission deadline has also been postponed, to 31st March, 2021. This also means that there will be no meeting of our scientific commission this year. Publication News Allué, E., Mas, B., 2020. The meaning of Pinus sylvestris-type charcoal taphonomic markers in Palaeolithic sites in NE Iberia.
    [Show full text]
  • The Peopling of the Explain the Origins, Development, and Achievements of Early World, Prehistory–2500 B.C
    CHAPTER 1 • OBJECTIVE The Peopling of the Explain the origins, development, and achievements of early World, Prehistory–2500 B.C. human beings. Previewing Main Ideas Previewing Main Ideas The main ideas highlighted here charac- INTERACTION WITH ENVIRONMENT As early humans spread out over the world, they adapted to each environment they encountered. As time terize human existence from prehistory progressed, they learned to use natural resources. through the present. They introduce stu- Geography Study the time line and the map. Where in Africa did human dents to basic themes that will help life begin? reveal patterns and connections among SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY The earliest peoples came up with new ideas historical events throughout the ages. and inventions in order to survive. As people began to live in settlements, Accessing Prior Knowledge they continued to develop new technology to control the environment. Geography Early humans began to migrate about 1.8 million years ago. Ask students to discuss what they already What paths did these migrations take? know about early human beings. As a ECONOMICS Early humans hunted animals and gathered wild plant foods starting point, you might ask if they have for 3 to 4 million years. Then about 10,000 years ago, they learned to tame read or seen the film version of Jean animals and to plant crops. Gradually, more complex economies developed. Auel’s book The Clan of the Cave Bear. Geography Early settlement sites often were near rivers. Why might they have been located there? Geography Answers INTERACTION WITH ENVIRONMENT Human life began in Eastern Africa.
    [Show full text]